ArticleEcoHealth2024
Pastoralism and Resulting Challenges for National Parks in Afar, Ethiopia.
Article in EcoHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of multi-channel magnetic particle immunofluorescent disc microfluidic chip for combined detection of antibodies against six common infectious diseases including visceral leishmaniasis in pastoral areas.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence and risk factors for Q fever and Rift Valley fever in pastoralists and their livestock in Afar, Ethiopia: A One Health approach.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pastoralists and national parks are key stakeholders in the management and conservation of natural and protected habitats. In Ethiopia, Afar pastoralists migrate seasonally with their livestock in search for grazing and water areas. Livestock are also a source of infectious diseases that can spread into wildlife populations when pastoralists encroach into unfenced national parks. The interactions between pastoralists and national parks, as well as the subsequent impacts, remain insufficiently understood in Afar. Two structured questionnaire surveys were conducted in 2021, including 300 pastoralist households in seven woredas of Afar, and 58 staff from three national parks (Awash, Alidegi and Yangudi Rassa). They captured pastoralist movements and livestock diseases as well as the perception of national park staff regarding challenges resulting from pastoral encroachment into parks. Among the pastoralists, 74.7% migrated with their livestock for a mean 3.5 months per year, during which time, 90% of respondents reported contact with other livestock herds, and over 80% with wildlife. A third (34.2%) reported disease outbreaks in their village prior to migration. Pastoralists traveled long distances, crossing woreda, regional or national boundaries. All 58-park respondents reported pastoralists with livestock inside their park and their close contact with wildlife. Additionally, 69% reported the presence of domestic dogs. Wildlife displacement, habitat loss and dog attacks on wildlife were perceived as the main threat caused by the presence of pastoralists, whereas diseases were only mentioned by 15.5%. Overall, park staff showed poor disease knowledge. They reported poor disease surveillance and no disease response. Within pastoral contexts, improved collaboration between wildlife and livestock authorities regarding land use, disease awareness and surveillance is needed to balance the needs of both wildlife and pastoralist's livestock development and mitigate threats to wildlife habitats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.